The Observer view: the case against Putin is irrefutable – so charge him

The Observer view: the case against Putin is irrefutable – so charge him

2018-09-09 12:25:07 UTC

2018-12-07 02:06:03 UTC
(3 months later)

After six months of painstaking investigations, the police and security services have produced convincing evidence to support the government’s claim that the Russian state was responsible for the nerve agent attack in Salisbury in March. The question now, for ministers and Britain’s allies, is what else should be done, in addition to steps already taken, to punish the regime in Moscow and ensure such outrages are not repeated.

After six months of painstaking investigations, the police and security services have produced convincing evidence to support the government’s claim that the Russian state was responsible for the nerve agent attack in Salisbury in March. The question now, for ministers and Britain’s allies, is what else should be done, in addition to steps already taken, to punish the regime in Moscow and ensure such outrages are not repeated.

From the moment it emerged that the target was a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal, and that novichok, a sophisticated, Russian-developed chemical weapon, had been used, there was never any serious doubt that Russian intelligence services were involved. The attack, which badly injured Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, recalled previous assaults on Russian citizens on British soil, notably the murder with radioactive polonium of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006.

From the moment it emerged that the target was a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal, and that novichok, a sophisticated, Russian-developed chemical weapon, had been used, there was never any serious doubt that Russian intelligence services were involved. The attack, which badly injured Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, recalled previous assaults on Russian citizens on British soil, notably the murder with radioactive polonium of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006.

Yet in naming two Russians as the perpetrators of the Salisbury attack, and identifying them as officers of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, Theresa May dispensed with the official caution that clouded the Litvinenko investigation. In that case, it took 10 years before a public inquiry pointed the finger of blame at Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president. May was more immediately forthcoming. The Salisbury attack was “almost certainly approved at a senior level of the Russian state”, she told the Commons. Ben Wallace, the security minister, was blunter still. Putin, he said, was “ultimately responsible”.

Yet in naming two Russians as the perpetrators of the Salisbury attack, and identifying them as officers of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, Theresa May dispensed with the official caution that clouded the Litvinenko investigation. In that case, it took 10 years before a public inquiry pointed the finger of blame at Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president. May was more immediately forthcoming. The Salisbury attack was “almost certainly approved at a senior level of the Russian state”, she told the Commons. Ben Wallace, the security minister, was blunter still. Putin, he said, was “ultimately responsible”.

Given the barrage of shrill denials, disinformation, lies, mockery and abuse that emanated from Moscow in the aftermath of the Salisbury outrage, ministers have cause for satisfaction that their initial accusations have been substantiated to a significant degree. The Kremlin, too, may have finally recognised it has a case to answer. It has now asked for Britain’s help in tracking down the two suspects. This may be another cynical diversion. But it is an indication that London’s pressure is working.

Given the barrage of shrill denials, disinformation, lies, mockery and abuse that emanated from Moscow in the aftermath of the Salisbury outrage, ministers have cause for satisfaction that their initial accusations have been substantiated to a significant degree. The Kremlin, too, may have finally recognised it has a case to answer. It has now asked for Britain’s help in tracking down the two suspects. This may be another cynical diversion. But it is an indication that London’s pressure is working.

Britain says Brexit will open door to tougher Russia sanctions

The unified response of Britain’s western allies is also gratifying – and has probably surprised Putin. The UK received important backing from the US, Canada, Germany and France at the UN security council last week. Once again Russia was forced on to the defensive. Try though it may, it has been unable to undermine the scrupulously impartial inquiries of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Although major countries such as China and India are reluctant to condemn Russia outright, it is clear that Moscow is on its own and lacks support.

The unified response of Britain’s western allies is also gratifying – and has probably surprised Putin. The UK received important backing from the US, Canada, Germany and France at the UN security council last week. Once again Russia was forced on to the defensive. Try though it may, it has been unable to undermine the scrupulously impartial inquiries of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Although major countries such as China and India are reluctant to condemn Russia outright, it is clear that Moscow is on its own and lacks support.

So far, so good, but a challenging task still lies ahead. A host of disturbing questions demand answers. These include how the two suspects obtained valid visas, presumably from the British embassy in Moscow, using forged passports. How did the two men then enter Britain without the deception being detected? Was the novichok nerve agent, contained in a perfume bottle, smuggled into London in a diplomatic bag sent to the Russian embassy, as reported last week? If so, the Russian ambassador’s continued presence here is unacceptable.

So far, so good, but a challenging task still lies ahead. A host of disturbing questions demand answers. These include how the two suspects obtained valid visas, presumably from the British embassy in Moscow, using forged passports. How did the two men then enter Britain without the deception being detected? Was the novichok nerve agent, contained in a perfume bottle, smuggled into London in a diplomatic bag sent to the Russian embassy, as reported last week? If so, the Russian ambassador’s continued presence here is unacceptable.

Britain must also demonstrate that it is serious about punishing Russia, even if the cost is high. Tougher measures against the laundering of dirty money, suspect investments and Putin cronies who cannot explain their vast wealth must be fully implemented. Cyber defences and counter-measures must be ramped up. And the government must ensure its allies follow through on last spring’s sanctions and diplomatic expulsions. Under US law, Russia faces draconian penalties in November if, by then, it has not provided credible guarantees that it will eschew future use of chemical weapons and allow on-site UN inspections. There must be no backsliding by Putin’s pal, Donald Trump.

Britain must also demonstrate that it is serious about punishing Russia, even if the cost is high. Tougher measures against the laundering of dirty money, suspect investments and Putin cronies who cannot explain their vast wealth must be fully implemented. Cyber defences and counter-measures must be ramped up. And the government must ensure its allies follow through on last spring’s sanctions and diplomatic expulsions. Under US law, Russia faces draconian penalties in November if, by then, it has not provided credible guarantees that it will eschew future use of chemical weapons and allow on-site UN inspections. There must be no backsliding by Putin’s pal, Donald Trump.

Another crucial question remains unanswered: is it true, as security officials claim, that sufficient novichok was concealed in the perfume bottle to potentially kill 4,000 people? The reckless action by Russia in Salisbury may not, strictly speaking, amount to an act of war. But as Tom Tugendhat, chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, has said, it was a “warlike act”. This was the action of a hostile power, exhibiting contempt for another country’s sovereign rights and territory, risking the lives and safety of its people, and undertaken with a smug assumption of impunity.

Another crucial question remains unanswered: is it true, as security officials claim, that sufficient novichok was concealed in the perfume bottle to potentially kill 4,000 people? The reckless action by Russia in Salisbury may not, strictly speaking, amount to an act of war. But as Tom Tugendhat, chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, has said, it was a “warlike act”. This was the action of a hostile power, exhibiting contempt for another country’s sovereign rights and territory, risking the lives and safety of its people, and undertaken with a smug assumption of impunity.

Russia’s leader must understand that he and his regime are not above the law. If the government believes Putin was ultimately responsible for the attack that injured the Skripals and subsequently killed Dawn Sturgess, a Salisbury resident, then it has a duty to take all possible measures against him. This includes state-on-state legal action via the world court (the international court of justice), via the international criminal court for a crime against humanity (which Salisbury arguably was), and against Putin personally.

Russia’s leader must understand that he and his regime are not above the law. If the government believes Putin was ultimately responsible for the attack that injured the Skripals and subsequently killed Dawn Sturgess, a Salisbury resident, then it has a duty to take all possible measures against him. This includes state-on-state legal action via the world court (the international court of justice), via the international criminal court for a crime against humanity (which Salisbury arguably was), and against Putin personally.

The notion of charging Putin himself raises the always controversial issue of immunity from prosecution that is normally afforded serving heads of state. Yet why wait until he is no longer president? European arrest warrants have been issued for the two principal suspects. Is it really so absurd to seek a warrant for their boss, too? It would be a well-deserved humiliation. And there is no doubt that Putin could help the police with their inquiries.

The notion of charging Putin himself raises the always controversial issue of immunity from prosecution that is normally afforded serving heads of state. Yet why wait until he is no longer president? European arrest warrants have been issued for the two principal suspects. Is it really so absurd to seek a warrant for their boss, too? It would be a well-deserved humiliation. And there is no doubt that Putin could help the police with their inquiries.